Proteins argue against evolution


#201

Hasn’t ANYONE else noted that virtually ALL “fossils” so far found on the planet are found in SEDIMENTARY rock formations?


#202

Oh, it’s absolute “settled science” then is it? Grief. Haven’t you noticed that the very nature of science is to disrupt and overturn what was previously believed?

That date came from radiocarbon dating mostly charcoal found at the site plus collagen from a cow’s tooth and very sparse buried organic stuff. But as your source admitted, radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating is susceptible to its unprovable assumptions.

It’s not quite that simple. The three wives of the sons on the ark did not descend from Noah. You have to go back to Adam. His origin date isn’t precisely known, but I think it was some 6500 years ago.

Why did people live so long before and just after the flood? That’s a hotly debated question. I suspect the declining magnetic field and thinner atmosphere allow in more radiation and thus more mutations and genetic defects. Or maybe there was some other change the flood brought that we don’t know anything about.

Other life might be older. All of the uncertainties make me wonder if it might indeed go back 3.8 billion years, just after the “late heavy bombardment.” Though that raises other problems like the strength of the magnetic field and how life could have survived so long with constant mutations. (By observation, mutations don’t evolve up, they devolve down and create new diseases.)

All that data has to be heavily interpreted. And all the interpreters assume that human life evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, in defiance of what the proteins tell us. So if you start with bad assumptions, you get bad results. They don’t say “garbage in, garbage out” for no reason.

Good point. I wonder why there’s so darned much sedimentary rock.

You ignore everything I say, or label it just a theory. It’s quite possible to keep doing that forever, if I had the drive to keep showing it to you. But you get the prize for tenacity. I’m getting bored to the point that I can’t play anymore.


#203

I assume you are refering to the death of Moses, which is recorded in the last few verses of the book. Like other writings, past and present, it s not uncommon for an obituary to be added at the end of someones work after he dies, especially if he died very soon after writing the book. The obituary in no way nullifies the fact that he wrote the book.

In this casr, the author of the obituary was probably Joshua, who was inspired by God to write the next book of the Old Testament. A similar obituary of Joshua ws added by an inspired editor at the end of Joshua’s book.
Joshua 24:29–33

The bible itself covers a time way older than the hebrew people. I never claimed the torah was the first writings ever made.

You are making the classic mistake of confusing microevolution with macroevolution. Christians have always accepted microevolution. The existance of microevolution has no bearing on the myth of macroevolution.


#204

You do understand that carbon dating is based on assumption and cannot be used as an accuarte dating method for the distant past? Fact is that you are simply unable to prove that the decay rate of carbon NEVER changes.

Toss another dating method in the garbage. So much junk science over the last hundred years has stemmed from the myth of millions of years.


#205

Actually every single method of dating which shows millions of years is in fact based on assumptions just like carbon dating. Again you are simply unable to prove it is accurate for ancient times. You must acknowledge that you do not KNOW what you do not KNOW.

Geologically christian phd scientists have found plenty of evidence for the worldwide flood. Just read some of their articles, as it is clear you never thoroughly educated yourself on the breakthroughs of christian science.


#206

My source offers a 500 year variance for objects under water for several millennia.

This Temple (Göbekli Tepe) was not underwater for that long (if at all), and is 6,000 years older than Stonehenge.

Which means unless you’re saying Stonehenge was built in the 16th century, your date for when humans first arose will have to move back Ken.

The interpretation is in how long each generation lasted; not how many generations there were.

And you’re not just off by a little bit here Ken, you’re off by a factor of 20. We see at least right up to Mitochondrial Eve who lived 120-156,000 years ago.

You’re at an impasse Ken. Either there is a counter in DNA, or there isn’t. If there is, you can’t deny how many generations there have been.

You just did this. Isostasy is an explanation for why the Himalayas grow by 1 cm per year.

What this isn’t, is a geological survey showing that 5,000 years ago, this growth suddenly went into overdrive, which is what you’re claiming, and what I’ve yet to see you offer evidence for.

Where is the geological evidence that this happened? And where is the Flood Stratum?


#207

If microevolutions keep accruing you eventually have both branching species, and a creature far different than the one you started with.

Really, the only difference between the micro and macro is timespan.

A Deinonychus becomes a Chicken given the right change in diet and environment overtime. The Chicken has Deinonychus DNA as leftover evidence of this change.


#208

Absolutely wrong. To find out why, read the very first post in this thread.


#209

Ken, we’ve already been through this. Each objection you tried to make, there existed evidence for.

The development of the heart, blood, the eye, fins to legs, there’s evidence of it all.

What we left on is that you couldn’t deny biological progression was occurring, you just preferred to think God did it directly.


#210

Yes, we’ve been through it. But you apparently have forgotten that you never produced evidence or even logic that natural selection can possibly play a roll in the evolution of proteins.

The path to a functional protein would have to pass through an effectively infinite number of non-functional states, none of which has any benefit or advantage.

Those who have faith in evolution just accept it on faith. No one examines this issue in any depth.


#211

? Yes I did; RNA precursors. 32-amino acid peptides. Peptides working as proto-proteins makes the fixation on proteins moot.

Meanwhile you stated that nature wouldn’t maintain a niche of fish with non-functional fins used as arms or legs, but it clearly does.

Niches you thought weren’t useful, nature has in fact deemed useful. So that objection doesn’t work

Thus, your argument as it currently stands admits that biological progression occurs. It’s just a question of whether you think mechanical forces, or God, directs them.


#212

Fish fins are irrelevant. The problem is with the proteins.

Precursors and peptides might seem to be points on a path, just as finding a couple islands in the Pacific might seem to allow you to build a highway to Hawaii. But you can’t. A couple points along the way doesn’t make a path. There’s no path to a protein, especially in a few billion years.


#213

They’re not because this is actually two different discussions. This is something I think should be specified.

The former is over whether there is a system in biology that changes organisms overtime.

The latter is asking what made that system, and how it was done.

Thus, even when you deflect to proteins Ken, you’re still acknowledging that creatures change overtime.
You’re just asking who or what made the system.

As your argument stands, you acknowledge biological progression occurs. You acknowledge macro-evolution occurs, you’re just insistent that God directs it.

You may want your argument to deny that macro-evolution occurs, but I don’t see what in your argument does that now. The protein argument doesn’t deny creatures are changing into other creatures, it just means you think God created the system that enacts evolution. Like how God created the laws that enact chemistry.


#214

BS, AS. Where do you suppose we obtained Deinonychus DNA for comparison?


#215

You’re absolutely totally wrong. I don’t deflect to proteins, proteins are a visible part of the boundary that prevents macro-evolution. Evolutionists point to a little micro-evolution that is observed and say, see these little changes accumulate to form complex, hierarchical, interdependent systems. They do not. Because that would require new proteins, totally new kinds of proteins.

Besides, in what other branch of chemistry, physics or science do we ever see errors accumulate to form complex, hierarchical, interdependent systems? The more I learn, the more shocked I am at how many otherwise-intelligent people are duped.

Can you at least confess that life has complex, hierarchical, interdependent systems?

Go to your local Alaska library and see if they have Dr. Douglas Axe’s excellent book, Undeniable (apparently I’ve already mentioned this book in this long long thread). Flip to chapter 10 where he talks about photosystem I, one of the major components of the cyanobacterial photosynthetic apparatus.

He lists the components: three each of 12 different complex proteins, other components, and 288 copies of cofactor “chlorophyll a” held in precise position by the protein framework.

The complete photosystem I shown at the bottom of figure 10.3 has
417 pieces, each precisely positioned for the whole device to perform
its function ...  By my count, about three dozen genes in the
cyanobacterial genome are dedicated to building this assembly: a
dozen for encoding the protein components and two dozen more for
encoding the enzymes needed to manufacture the cofactors.

If an intelligent person is faced with examining this issue, how can he hang onto his faith that each protein is an accumulation of errors?

And why would natural selection hang onto all the components until enough had evolved to do some photosynthesis?

And what supplied the energy for the organism to live and reproduce while waiting millions of years for the remaining components to accumulate? (I say “millions of years” because that’s all you have between the late heavy bombardment and the carbon residue of life, even though a trillion trillion years wouldn’t be nearly long enough to accumulate a protein’s worth of errors.)

I’m not sure at all that you really believe in evolution, AS. I think you’re deliberately obfuscating. Perhaps just for obstinate fun. Or perhaps you fear the truth that science has clearly revealed because it strongly implies there exists a living Lord God who lovingly created us. And that implies we will meet him when we die and our lives will be examined. Fortunately for us all, he’s made a plan where we can be saved from our own sin.


#216

It wouldn’t, it just requires horizontal gene-transfer (which we’ve observed), and changes to Chromosomes (also observed)

Ergo, genes can jump species, and Chromosomes can increase or decrease in number.

You keep making the assumption that the genome of organisms are closed systems to one another (They’re not), and every change has to wait for a mutation to update (they don’t, gene expression can change genes, even into configurations the organism has never been in before.)

This is all observed. New proteins don’t have to be created from scratch for an organism to change, sometimes they don’t have to be created at all. They can be borrowed.

Or “introduced” by bacteria that is intentionally trying to alter the DNA of another organism.

t-DNA, might want to look into that Ken. You seem to have never heard of it.


#217

Have you heard about turkey’s mating with monkeys and producing offspring? Have you heard of mosquitos mating with birds and producing offspring? For that matter, have you EVER seen ANY scientific evidence of one species mating with another and producing a viable, reproducible “new” species? Of course not. For something to be a scientific fact, one thing that’s absolutely necessary is that it must be REPRODUCIBLE. We’ve NEVER observed any such thing. Most species won’t even TRY to mate with a different species and the few that humans have FORCED to do so via artificial insemination have all been CLOSELY related species and they produce INFERTILE offspring. Peacocks WILL mate with turkey hens in the wild, but ONLY if there are no available pea-hens and the eggs will be infertile. In fact, because their mating displays are so spectacular compared to tom turkeys, hen turkeys will ONLY mate with a peacock that runs with a turkey flock and that will DESTROY that flock in time so conservationist always tell turkey hunters to be sure and KILL a peacock they observe with a wild turkey flock…regardless of any “season” restrictions. Mules, “ligers” etc. are always sterile.


#218

It’s called a virus. Viruses hijack cellular machinery to make more of themselves, and by doing so, they encode a bit of their DNA into a plant/animal.

This is doubly effective if the animal was pregnant at the time, and the virus goes after the zygote/embryo.

Transposable elements, or transposons, (also known as “Jumping genes”) occupy half the human genome.

We also have retroviruses written into our DNA. They were likely the carriers of at least some of those transposons.


#219

It works for bears:

Same to Coyotes and wolves.

There are also example of animals that are combos of three species or more. It’s pretty common among birds.


#220

Those “examples” are all members of the SAME geneses…Ursines, canines and avians. No one has shown that these “hybrids” are reproducing however.